> I strongly disagree :-) and agree with people expressing their > appreciation for checked expression, only criticizing the way they were > implemented.
Isn't that a rather pointless separation though, we have to work with checked exceptions at a practical level. At a conceptual level I am already using closures in Java. ;) > Everything depends on the way exceptions are used. Checked exceptions > are a valuable tool to fully describe the semantics of a method. That > is, they are part of the possible outcome of the method. If you add a > checked exception to the innermost method, I find it a feature (ditto... > ;-) the fact that you are forced to change all the callers, since you > *have* to take into account the new method outcome. It's basically a > form of declaring postconditions - or, better, one of the possible > postconditions. Yes, you are given more guaranties (or the illusion thereof) up front, but at a price. In a way, it comes back to the eternal dilemma between static and dynamic. /Casper --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
